Death penalty; Use DNA and truth drugs to get the truth out. If they atre guilty, then have a 6 month time limit on no more than 3 appeals, then execute. By firing squad or hanging. If you are weak stomached, then lethal injection. Which is NOT imnumane. For some crimes I'd put a gun to the forehead of the criminnal and pull the trigger myself.

Death penalty; Use DNA and truth drugs to get the truth out. If they atre guilty, then have a 6 month time limit on no more than 3 appeals, then execute. By firing squad or hanging. If you are weak stomached, then lethal injection. Which is NOT imnumane. For some crimes I'd put a gun to the forehead of the criminnal and pull the trigger myself.

You forget the right to protection against self-incrimination meaning you can't use truth drugs on a prisoner, and DNA is not always available nor is that 100% all the time either.

The police, at least in america, are not the damn gestapo and I for one am appalled that you would like to see some sort of fascist police state where people would apparently be assumed guilty rather than innocent until proven otherwise.

As far as taxes go, I am one of the supporters of the FairTax movement. It is definitely more fair than our current bloated and corrupt system. I have a problem with a billionaire like Soros (or anyone) getting tax breaks because of political connections. And we need to fix the system.

Social Security - I am all for the private accounts. Otherwise, I'll never see the money that I've been paying into it.

Umm.. you know that Iraq is a legal war? 17 broken UN resolutions and Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement he signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War. Since it was a cease fire, war was still in effect. It's just that military operations had stopped for the time. We could have restarted them anytime after the first violation. With out ANY UN backing. He signed a treaty and quickly violated it. Good enough reason to take his arse out.

People might not like the fact that wqe did go in, but the war is not illegal, nor do Bush and Cheny deserve to be tried as war ciminals. If you do that then you have to add the French and German and some British politicians to that list for aiding and abetting Saddam in his deceptions.

Excuse me but as far as I know we never DECLARED WAR as per vote to that effect as per the Constitution. And when are WE the UN lapdogs and the world police.

And if we declared war we could have war powers in effect for the President, a war tax to pay for the war (read the Constitution they can issue a 5 year tax for war funding), call up the National Guard (I could make no arguement then we would be in a legal war) and have many other benefits.

That means in public each member of Congress in public must vote for or against a war, be willing to commit their people to do what is needed for the war and take the obligations of sending our soldiers to fight. Granting authority is not a declaration of war. And in times we act with the UN then why are our troops the vast majority of the forces present? Why didn't we invoke the NATO alliance and bring in our allies we would have that right in war?

This was not a humanitarian mission or a action to protect our citizens like evacuating Americans from a civil war zone- we attacked Iraq a independant nation without a Geneva Convention REQUIRED Declaration of War. Remember we got the Japanese for not declaring war BEFORE their attack on Pearl Harbor- same thing.

I say, based on the Medina Standard, the Administration, and commanders at Gitmo should be tried for war crimes.

-The Medina standard is based upon the massacre at My Lai which US captain Ernest Medina failed to prevent. It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action.[-

for more info, see: Human Rights and the Commander By Barry McCaffrey, autumn 1995 The My Lai Massacre: A Case Study By MAJ. Tony Raimondo, Human Rights Program, School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia

Before anyone tries the French and Germans for being in cahoots with Saddam, what happened to Reagan-Bush Sr. providing him arms and looking the other way during the gassings of the Kurds? The sort of thing we claim to have gone to war to prevent.

Seems to me we're party to the UN, and the leader of the UN insists the attack on Iraq was illegal. There are also several American soldiers that have refused deployment partly based on arguments that it violates international treaties we have signed.

However, I'm less concerned with whether the war is legal than whether it was honestly represented or helpful. I don't believe it has been either of these. Unless perhaps you're an oil baron, defense contractor, or perhaps certain Iraqi exlies (often linked to fiery militias or Iranian influence). I believe the administration fabricated claims of present danger, and has since trashed our economy for the sake of manly harumphing and pounding against relatively defenseless people.

Shame, shame! It's all the fault of those dirty peacenik cut-and-run Democrats and libruls! Why, if they hadn't dared to doubt our Great Leader's wisdom from the outset, this happy little war wouldn't have been necessary! Everyone knows total devotion to the President's will is the only proper American thing to feel. Unless, of course, the President's a Democrat. Everyone knows that they don't serve in the military or earn medals like real Americans.

You ain't wunna them traitorous types who reads books, are ya?

I suggest Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly, especially the chapters on Vietnam. Wooden-headed pursuit of policy contrary to state interest in the face of viable alternatives, anyone?

Exactly take sending troops to help disaster relief after the Tsunami that was a good use of our troops it helped people, we gained honor and we did not risk our troops. And Indonesia said come in for a month, no weapons, help and then LEAVE. And we did.

I also question Bush's motives he had no proof Saddam even had WMD's anymore and even if he did no proof he was going to arm terrorists with them. He was contained and hurting why did we have to invade Iraq?

Unfortunately, it will take a lot of Indonesias to redress the damage done by other errors. Not impossible, but not easy. And in my experience, those who shriek the most shrilly have the least stomach for what must be done.

The greatest strength of the Republic has been, and always will be, it's openness. ANYBODY can come here, take a citizenship class, and become an American. Argue the melting pot versus the salad all you want--we are capable and flexible enough to allow for multiple ethnicities and sub-cultures, and yet this does not change America for the worse. (Except for the rabid isolationists, but they'll gripe about anything) Freedom and justice for all, remember?

Contrary to the complaining and whining of some folks who can't stand the thought of admitting that there are non-white, non-European, non-Christian citizens, they do exist, and they are important. It is the immigrant who keeps us strong and vibrant, whose cultural contributions make us more diverse and fascinating.

Immigration is a good thing. It always has been: the benefits have outweighed the costs, which have almost never been as horrible as some people want to think.

Now, that said...illegal immigration is still illegal, and is a major concern. Thanks to the heated rhetoric of a few citizens *cough*Buchanan*cough* it has become very difficult to calmly and carefully discuss the issue without accusations of 'appeasement' going one way and 'racist' going the other.

Obviously, we don't want just anybody coming in, or sneaking over the border for who knows what nefarious purposes. So we have quotas and limits. But the result? Legally immigrating is time consuming, costly, and a bureaucratic pain in the neck. Which in many ways encourages illegal immigration.

There's got to be a better way. I don't know what it is, but there's got to be one. How does one punish the guilty without in some way also punishing the innocent? That takes a form of wisdom that's in short supply these days.

I am not in lockstep with Bush. I definitely don't agree with him on "gay marriage". However, he is not the pure evil some people are making him out to be.

He makes decisions and carries them out. I, for one, would rather have that than a president who waits to see whch direction the wind is blowing before coming to a decision. If we don't agree, fine. Get involved in the political process. As long as you are a LEGAL citizen, that is your right.

But, with family and friends who serve in the military in my family (including some DIEHARD Democrats), I have asked them about leadership. Every single one of them say that they prefer someone like Bush to our previous President who cut and run in Somalia after causing the events of October 3rd, 1993 by not listening to his commanders on the ground. They also said that they didn't trust Kerry who is notorious for his flip-flops. (Including on Immigration) And by the way, if we ever go to war with Iran, Kerry has already said (on the record) that we must go to war with Iran if they get a nuke and we can't peacefully resolve it. So, if that comes true, don't go saying that whoever is President has overstepped his authority.

We do not hand over our sovereignty and control to anyone else, not the UN, not the World Court, no one. Over 225 years ago, our forefathers fought to give us our freedom and sovereignty. We should honor it.